Export thread

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2...d-following-beating-and-fatal-car-wreck.html/

So one late night in College Station, Texas, a teen from Flower Mound was beaten by a group of people. His girlfriend tried to drive him to the hospital, and they died in a car wreck. The families sued McDonalds, claiming the deaths would not have happened if McDonalds had hired security to keep their property safe. They kinda do have a point, as the police had already had to come out numerous times in the recent past for similar reasons. Apparently a jury thought the point was an excellent one, as they awarded the families a $27 million judgement.

I'm not really sure where I stand on this. Is it the responsibility of a restaurant such as McDonalds to hire security for their parking lot? If it was such a trouble spot, why didn't the CSPD have more of a presence? It's not Bryan, after all, they have the funding and the overzealous authoritarians itching for excuses to bust somebody.

And of course, how I hear about this is by way of hearing a salesperson down the hall moan about how this is going to affect McDonalds' advertising budget in Texas (they're her second biggest client).

In my personal not-a-lawyer opinion, I don't understand how they could've at all been liable for the car wreck. McDonalds is an establishment people pay to obtain tasty food of questionable origin, not security. My local grocery store even states that it is not responsible for damage done to cars in the parking lot even if that damage is caused by carts bearing that establishment's logo. Unless McDonalds was somehow instrumental in causing the situation (rather than failing to prevent it), I have absolutely no idea how something like this would make it through court.

Something's fishy, to me.

--Patrick

Well, the beating I could see them being liable for because it did happen on their property. A parking lot is still their property, and generally the law has leaned towards liability of the owner in cases where people have been injured on their property for whatever reason, be it caused by negligence or not. As far as the actual car accident itself, I don't understand how that could in any way be tied to the business.

Yeah... a little fishy. I'm with PatrThom, especially since the deaths were caused not by the beating, but by a subsequent car accident on the way to the hospital. And why, exactly, did the girlfriend try to drive the beating victim to the hospital, instead of calling an ambulance, which would have come with a police escort, which could have taken care of the actual perpetrators of the beating (if they were stupid enough to still be hanging around)? There are plenty of people to impart responsibility on, but just from this little blurb, I'm really not seeing how this is the Clown's fault. For that matter, do we know that this was an actual corporate McDonald's, as opposed to a franchise? If it's a franchise it's completely out of McD's control as to whether or not that franchisee hires security for their parking lot. The most McD's could do is request that the owner increase security at the risk of losing their franchise license if they failed to comply, but it would likely take years for them to get to the point where they would actually pull a franchise license, especially in a city like College Station. This jury had their heads up their asses.

I wonder if the McD's lawyer got pissy and said how much money McD's makes in an hour...

That is how the jury arrived at the large sum for the woman that got burned by their coffee.

When my sister was run over in the parking lot of a lawn care place (they sell lawn care, equipment, decorations, etc.) my sister sued the business. A little old lady got the brake and gas mixed up. How in the fuck is this the fault of the business?

I love my sister, but I really disagreed with this move.

sixpackshaker said:

I wonder if the McD's lawyer got pissy and said how much money McD's makes in an hour...

That is how the jury arrived at the large sum for the woman that got burned by their coffee.

Click to expand...

...that and the lady suffered third degree burns over, what, 20% of her body I tihnk?

...and she offered to settle for a stupidly low amount (not even enough to settle her medical costs) but McD's refused.

After that I think they were pretty much fair game.

Also, I odn't think she even got 3 mil after.

LittleSin said:

...that and the lady suffered third degree burns over, what, 20% of her body I tihnk?

...and she offered to settle for a stupidly low amount (not even enough to settle her medical costs) but McD's refused.

After that I think they were pretty much fair game.

Also, I odn't think she even got 3 mil after.

Click to expand...

3rd degree burns over 6%.

Trial judge reduced the award to $640,000. Then it was settled for a confidential amount while the appeal was pending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants[DOUBLEPOST=1406818638,1406818221][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:

She continues, today, to suffer from the results of that incident.

Click to expand...

Unlikely. She died 10 years ago.

This article reports it was 16% of her body. Actually, that whole article is chilling (no pun intended) and informative.

Tinwhistler said:

Unlikely. She died 10 years ago.

Click to expand...

Still suffering from McDonald's in death.

Hmm, that would make a good headstone for someone, I'm sure.

LittleSin said:

This article reports it was 16% of her body. Actually, that whole article is chilling (no pun intended) and informative.

Click to expand...

There's been a lot of lazy reporting on this case.

The site you link to is also a bit of a one-sided take on the issue.

For instance, it fails to mention that 190 degrees is the industry standard holding temperature for coffee (according to the National Coffee Association), and falls in line with other establishments' standards (such as Starbucks).

Here's a fairly neutral summation of the arguments put forth by both parties:
http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.html

Depending on how often she ate at mcdonalds, she might not have experienced any decay in the last 10 years.

To be clear, 6% is less than an arm. Not that that makes it any less painful. Just putting it in perspective.

fade said:

To be clear, 6% is less than an arm. Not that that makes it any less painful. Just putting it in perspective.

Click to expand...

Now imagine that the burn is on your dick...

it was on her vajayjay.

sixpackshaker said:

Now imagine that the burn is on your dick...

it was on her vajayjay.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the location, it doesn't really have any bearing on liability in the case.

While being sympathetic to the woman, and recognizing that her burns were fairly horrific, I tend to lean toward McDonalds not being 80% liable in this case (which is what the jury found).

It seems to boil down to: McDonalds has hot coffee, and they knew it was hot. Sometimes people burned themselves on it, and McDonalds knew that too. Still, they served their coffee at an industry standard temperature--one that most of their customers seemed to prefer. There was a warning on the cup, but the jury felt that it was insufficient.

I'm of the opinion that the majority of the fault lies with the lady who opened a hot cup of coffee that was squeezed between her knees. I don't feel that the coffee was defective or unsuitable for the purpose of being drunk, which is one of the key issues of the case.

I've burned the roof of my mouth plenty of times eating pizza too soon after it was delivered. I don't really think the local Pizza Hut is at fault when I do.

Her vajayjay was 6% of her body?!? Holy crap! Her husband must hate that.

Tinwhistler said:

Regardless of the location, it doesn't really have any bearing on liability in the case.

While being sympathetic to the woman, and recognizing that her burns were fairly horrific, I tend to lean toward McDonalds not being 80% liable in this case (which is what the jury found).

It seems to boil down to: McDonalds has hot coffee, and they knew it was hot. Sometimes people burned themselves on it, and McDonalds knew that too. Still, they served their coffee at an industry standard temperature--one that most of their customers seemed to prefer. There was a warning on the cup, but the jury felt that it was insufficient.

I'm of the opinion that the majority of the fault lies with the lady who opened a hot cup of coffee that was squeezed between her knees. I don't feel that the coffee was defective or unsuitable for the purpose of being drunk, which is one of the key issues of the case.

I've burned the roof of my mouth plenty of times eating pizza too soon after it was delivered. I don't really think the local Pizza Hut is at fault when I do.

Click to expand...

McDonalds had lines of coffee heated to the most cost-effective temperature for when it was estimated a cup of coffee at the end of the line would reach a customer without their being an issue of it having gotten cold by then. I doubt anyone requests their coffee so hot that it leaves third degree burns--or at least, not enough to become the majority.

Zero Esc said:

McDonalds had lines of coffee heated to the most cost-effective temperature for when it was estimated a cup of coffee at the end of the line would reach a customer without their being an issue of it having gotten cold by then. I doubt anyone requests their coffee so hot that it leaves third degree burns--or at least, not enough to become the majority.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your line of reasoning. Coffee as low as 130 degrees can leave third degree burns in seconds. Almost everyone serves coffee well above that temperature. Hell, coffee comes out of my Keurig at close to 190 degrees. Even if the McDonalds in question served their coffee at 130 degrees, the lady would have been severely burned by the spill, including 3rd degree burns.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "lines of coffee". Do yo mean they pre-poured and lined them up at the counter? Because I've never personally seen a McDonalds do that, and when I worked at McDonalds (around 1989), they didn't do it there, either. They were poured to order from a coffee pot set for a holding temperature of 190 degrees.

Tinwhistler said:

I disagree with your line of reasoning. Coffee as low as 130 degrees can leave third degree burns, though it may take a few more seconds. Almost everyone serves coffee well above that temperature. Hell, coffee comes out of my Keurig at close to 190 degrees. Even if the McDonalds in question served their coffee at 130 degrees, the lady would have been severely burned by the spill, including 3rd degree burns.

Click to expand...

It seems excessive to me, however, if it's an industry standard then I suppose it's unfair to lay blame entirely on McDonalds.

And for all I know, it's necessary. I don't drink coffee, so I don't know how hot it has to be before the awful taste goes away.

stienman said:

150F requires about 20 seconds for 3rd degree burns.

At 190F it is 2-3 seconds.

If her coffee were served at 150F she would not have suffered such extensive 3rd degree burns, and if she had acted in 20 seconds time she might have not had any 3rd degree burns.

Note that anti-scald temperature charts are for flowing water that is continually replaced and doesn't cool off, so they don't apply in this case.

Click to expand...

Do you have a citation at all for these assertions? Because I don't see anything about the anti-scald chart being about "flowing water" versus any other kind, whereas I see the above numbers (around 2 seconds for 150 degree liquid) in lots of places...such as
https://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3
http://brightonareafire.com/news-events/burn-prevention-scald-burns/

And these sites often mention spills (such as coffee) in their warnings. They also don't take into account that older skin is more frail and will become damaged even faster than younger, healthy skin.

So, even if your 20 second figure is accurate (which I dispute), I can't see an 80 year old woman jumping up, exiting a vehicle, and stripping off her pants in that time frame--which is what would've been required to avoid 3rd degree burns.

Might as well sue the police dept for not keeping the area safe and the mayor (McCheese) and the governor and Obama. Thanks Obama!

stienman said:

I don't think it needs to be explained that there's a difference between 190F 8 oz of hot water soaked into clothing will have different results than 190F constant stream of water applied to the same surface area.

Click to expand...

So, the answer is "no", then?

I think 190 degrees is 190 degrees, and 150 degrees is 150 degrees. I think in the very minor amount of time we're talking about (2 seconds or less), the coffee would not have cooled sufficiently to mitigate serious injury (including 3rd degree burns).

Zero Esc said:

I don't know how hot it has to be before the awful taste goes away.

Click to expand...

You have to keep the water temperature below 190F to prevent dissolving and extracting all the bitter compounds as well as the flavorful ones.

--Patrick

stienman said:

So yes, a steady stream of 150F water can produce a significantly worse burn than a single cup of 190F water.

Click to expand...

What you're saying makes common sense if we're talking about an extended period of time. If I hold my hand under running water at 150 degrees for 30 seconds, it'll certainly burn me worse than 150 degrees of coffee thrown on me that is cooling for those 30 seconds. Because we can draw on our experience that shit cools down over time, due to evaporation, radiating heat, etc.

But we're talking about 2 seconds. Many of those cooling factors that we consider common sense aren't at play. We're talking about rapid and direct thermal transfer of heat into the skin. And while I've produced documentation and expert websites that say 2 seconds will burn you at 150 degrees, you haven't really produced anything but conjecture and armchair lawyering to show anything to the contrary. You assert that these numbers all come from a central source, and then try to knock down that source (the essence of a strawman argument), but you haven't actually provided any evidence that they do come from that source, nor any actual scientific evidence that disputes the facts as I presented them.

You seem to be dancing close to, without saying outright, that 150 degree coffee wouldn't have caused the lady serious third degree burns. That is directly contradicted by every trade organization I've been able to find. You imply that if it took 20 seconds to burn her as opposed to two, that somehow she'd have been able to mitigate the damage, which I find incredulous at best. You fail to address the fact that nearly every place that serves coffee does so at temperatures significantly above 150 degrees, and in fact, 190 is the industry standard. You also do not address the obvious and inherent danger of opening up a flexible styrofoam cup of steaming hot liquid while it is squeezed between your knees, which alone, in my mind, puts the majority of the liability on the customer.

Unless you come up with something new, I just don't see the point of debating with you further about it.

drawn_inward said:

Might as well sue the police dept for not keeping the area safe and the mayor (McCheese) and the governor and Obama. Thanks Obama!

Click to expand...

Police departments actually have been sued for not doing their jobs, but the courts have decided again and again that the police have no obligation to intervene in a crime or investigate it, especially if it may endanger an officer.

For what it's worth (and it may not actually be worth anything), when I started working at McD's (which was after the coffee burning incident) and specifically asked my manager about it, I was told that the reason McD's lost the lawsuit was because they had been over-heating the coffee as a sales strategy against people buying only coffee (which at the time cost $.50 for a small cup and $.75 for a large), and then taking up space in the dining area while they did nothing but drink their coffee. The strategy dictated that they over-heat the coffee (above the industry standard of 190F) by leaving pots on burners that had been adjusted to heat to higher temps, in an attempt to make it take long enough for the served coffee to cool down that people would realize they were hungry also and order food to consume while they waited.

--Patrick

Gared said:

For what it's worth (and it may not actually be worth anything), when I started working at McD's (which was after the coffee burning incident) and specifically asked my manager about it, I was told that the reason McD's lost the lawsuit was because they had been over-heating the coffee as a sales strategy against people buying only coffee (which at the time cost $.50 for a small cup and $.75 for a large), and then taking up space in the dining area while they did nothing but drink their coffee. The strategy dictated that they over-heat the coffee (above the industry standard of 190F) by leaving pots on burners that had been adjusted to heat to higher temps, in an attempt to make it take long enough for the served coffee to cool down that people would realize they were hungry also and order food to consume while they waited.

Click to expand...

If that's true, I don't think it ever came up in court. If it did, I'd have to imagine that it would have been widely reported on with as much press as the case has gotten over the years.

It's an odd one. Guess there could be more to the story. It is a very short article.

As for people suing left and right when they are injured, that is just the nature of the beast in the US. The healthcare system and lack of job security means that bills+being unable to work for even just a few weeks can ruin the rest of your life.